Insofar as I have a good understanding of what to hope for in the China-Taiwan relationship, it's that we want that situation to move forward peacefully, in a way that keeps Taiwan from being messed up by the Chinese government, and that ends the weirdness of two countries pretending that they're one country. Really, they seem to be in some kind of bizarre dysfunctional relationship that would make a wacky sitcom episode, if there weren't a risk that things would turn violent and possibly drag America into a conflict that would kill huge numbers of people.
So I'm guessing that the Chinese and Taiwanese governments exchanging direct communications for the first time in 60 years is a positive development. Hopefully they'll have a chat at some point in the future where they're like, "Um, so, we're two separate countries, right?"
11 comments:
Worth noting how The Onion's coverage of Taiwan has subtly shifted since being purchased by the mainland's Yu Wan Mei Amalgamated Salvage Fisheries and Polymer Injection Group...
Beyond the particulars of fish-byproduct newspaper editorial positions...
"Hopefully they'll have a chat at some point in the future where they're like, "Um, so, we're two separate countries, right?"
I'd say this is dead wrong.
No one but the Taiwanese have any interest in actually ending the One China policy. Both the US and China are committed to the One China policy for the medium to long-term, albeit for two different reasons.
At least until China democratizes or the US loses its military superiority, the US position will almost certainly continue to be to maintain the status quo of "One China, just not in practice yet".
If I were taking bets, I'd say that Korea will be unified and permanent Israeli/Palestinian borders will be agreed upon before the China/Taiwan issue is settled...
I'm curious, Petey -- why does America want One China to keep going? I could see why China would want it, if it weren't totally hollow. But as far as I can tell, it's totally hollow and everybody knows it even if they pretend otherwise.
"I'm curious, Petey -- why does America want One China to keep going?"
For the same reason that we'd like a Korea united under the leadership of the South and why we'd like an I/P border settlement at something like the '67 lines: it seems the safest and easiest solution.
Or put another way, what's the alternative to "One China, just not in practice yet"?
If our policy is "Two Chinas", that leads the Chinese to actually invade Taiwan in the near-term. If our policy is "One China Right Now", obviously we haven't thought things out properly.
The concept that China gets back Taiwan once China is no longer a threat to Taiwan works for everybody in the neighborhood. U.S. benevolent hegemony on the Pacific Rim has the mandate of heaven. It fosters trade.
In any case, the first rule of Chimerica Club is to not fuck around with Chimerica Club. The core of the bargain behind the alliance that won the Cold War was "One China, just not in practice yet".
"I could see why China would want it, if it weren't totally hollow. But as far as I can tell, it's totally hollow and everybody knows it even if they pretend otherwise."
I'm not sure at all that it's totally hollow. Look forward a century (or two), and I'd say it's a decent bet that Taiwan eventually gets united with the mainland.
And whether or not this actually turns out to be true, that kind of timeframe seems to be at the core of the calculus of the PRC, so it's true in diplomatic terms.
The Kissinger and Chou En-Lai dialogue about the French Revolution sounds too good to not be apocryphal, but it's apropos.
I agree with you on the "don't fuck with China" side of things. But I don't see why that gives us any positive preference for a Greater China that you don't fuck with. It seems like we'd be happier having peaceful relations with a China that had itself accepted the separation from Taiwan.
Some of the dynamics here, I'd have to imagine, are like Russia-Ukraine, where we don't want Ukraine to just be a Russian client state. I'd have to imagine that the US is plenty happy with Taiwan as it is, and doesn't want its policies being changed by another great power whose interests we might not always share.
I wouldn't bet against reunification on the 100-200 year time scale. But in general I'm not betting against any political units combining on a scale that long. The modern world makes more EUs.
"It seems like we'd be happier having peaceful relations with a China that had itself accepted the separation from Taiwan. "
I, for one, would not be happy with such a situation unless it came accompanied by a pony.
-----
"Some of the dynamics here, I'd have to imagine, are like Russia-Ukraine, where we don't want Ukraine to just be a Russian client state. I'd have to imagine that the US is plenty happy with Taiwan as it is, and doesn't want its policies being changed by another great power whose interests we might not always share."
Similar in certain senses. But dramatically different in others.
The fact that we've been proving a de facto military guarantee of Taiwan's independence for 60 years now adds in an element not present in a proxy battle like Russia/Georgia or Russia/Ukraine.
It's immensely bad practice to abandon long-term client states to regional hegemons. Similarly, Israel is an albatross on our ME foreign policy, but just walking away from Israel would send really bad signals throughout the ME..
Despite the discreditization during the Vietnam error, dominoes really do often fall in a rows. If the US acquiesced to China taking Taiwan by force, how long until Japan moves from a US orbit to a Chinese orbit? Not that long, I'd venture.
The ability of the US to fight to a stalemate in the China straits while simultaneously not contesting the ultimate sovereignty of China over Taiwan is the lynchpin to peace in the region.
And, of course, none of this touches on the concept of wanting advance beachheads across both the oceans as core defense strategy.
Russia can do whatever it wants on the fringes of its decrepit empire. But keeping order in the Pacific Rim is the only thing that stands between us and a true global economic meltdown. The stakes are high enough that no one with an economy wants to mess with the status quo.
Even the PRC prefers the status quo, (though if the US Military shut down operations, it'd be hard for them to avoid the temptation of a glorious adventure...)
-----
"I wouldn't bet against reunification on the 100-200 year time scale. But in general I'm not betting against any political units combining on a scale that long. The modern world makes more EUs."
A China/Taiwan union seems more pressing than any general global trend toward conglomeratization.
If the US Military shut down operations, I'd give 50/50 odds that the PRC would stand on Formosa within a decade.
And assuming the US Military doesn't shut down operations, I'd guess the eventual PRC and ROC union looks more like the Scotland and England union of the 18th Century did than the EU integration does.
If the US Military shut down operations, I'd give 50/50 odds that the PRC would stand on Formosa within a decade.
That may be. But in fact the US military is going to be there, frustrating Chinese schemes for unification for the foreseeable future. Under the circumstances, accepting the two-China reality and turning your attention to other things seems like the rational play for Beijing.
"But in fact the US military is going to be there, frustrating Chinese schemes for unification for the foreseeable future. Under the circumstances, accepting the two-China reality and turning your attention to other things seems like the rational play for Beijing."
Disagree.
Pursuing a One China policy while tacitly acknowledging that the US military prevents taking any action towards putting that policy into reality is absolutely costless for the PRC.
OTOH, relinquishing its claim to Taiwan would have numerous costs for the PRC, for example:
1) It'd mean they wouldn't have a semi-valid claim on Taiwan in a future where the US wasn't able to back up Taiwan.
2) It'd undermine the party's prestige enhancing mission of restoring China's 'territorial integrity' after the humiliating Western land grabs of the colonial era.
3) It'd embolden Uigher and Tibetan separatist sentiment.
For the PRC, officially giving up on the One China policy seems to have all downside and no upside.
If the US military disappeared, then the PRC would face some difficult decisions on how to proceed. But under current circumstances, holding to a One China position seems a no-brainer.
Well, here's the downside -- it's going to be a lot more tricky to engage in any sort of mutually beneficial activity with the Taiwanese government.
"Well, here's the downside -- it's going to be a lot more tricky to engage in any sort of mutually beneficial activity with the Taiwanese government."
Trade and investment between the PRC and ROC are already skyrocketing.
I'm not sure what other kind of mutually beneficial activity the mainland needs out of Taiwan in the near to mid-term...
Post a Comment